An Obama appointee to the federal bench ruled Friday that the right to same-sex marriage is deeply rooted in the nations history and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, and as such is a fundamental right.

Judge Robert J. Shelby was appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Central Division of Utah in 2012 by President Obama, then confirmed by a Senate voice vote on Sept. 21, 2012, with neither debate nor objection, according to CNS News.

A federal district court is a court of original jurisdiction, but if its opinions are left unchallenged, they become the law for that district. Read the judges opinion here.

To establish a new fundamental right, the court must determine that the right is deeply rooted in this Nations history and tradition and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if [it] were sacrificed, he wrote.

Shelby then applied the rule to same-sex marriage:

Because same-sex marriage has only recently been allowed by a number of states, the State argues that an individuals right to marry someone of the same sex cannot be a fundamental right. But the Supreme Court did not adopt this line of reasoning in the analogous case of Loving v. Virginia. Instead of declaring a new right to interracial marriage, the Court held that individuals could not be restricted from exercising their existing right to marry on account of the race of their chosen partner. Similarly, the Plaintiffs here do not seek a new right to same-sex marriage, but instead ask the court to hold that the State cannot prohibit them from exercising their existing right to marry on account of the sex of their chosen partner.

The court attempted to liken interracial marriage to same-sex marriage.

The alleged right to same-sex marriage that the State claims the Plaintiffs are seeking is simply the same right that is currently enjoyed by heterosexual individuals: the right to make a public commitment to form an exclusive relationship and create a family with a partner with whom the person shares an intimate and sustaining emotional bond, Shelby wrote.

He added:

This right is deeply rooted in the nations history and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty because it protects an individuals ability to make deeply personal choices about love and family free from government interference.

And, as discussed above, this right is enjoyed by all individuals. If the right to same-sex marriage were a new right, then it should make new protections and benefits available to all citizens. But heterosexual individuals are as likely to exercise their purported right to same-sex marriage as gay men and lesbians are to exercise their purported right to opposite-sex marriage. Both same-sex and opposite-sex marriage are therefore simply manifestations of one rightthe right to marryapplied to people with different sexual identities.

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., pushed through a Senate vote last month killing the filibuster rule when approving executive appointments. Three Democrats  Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Carl Levin of Michigan  opposed the change, as did every single GOP senator, according to USA Today.

It will now be much easier for the president to remake the judicial branch into his own likeness. So expect more senseless rulings like Shelbys.

This right is deeply rooted in the nations history and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty because it protects an individuals ability to make deeply personal choices about love and family free from government interference.

The irony is lost on this stupid bastard.

7
posted on 12/22/2013 11:47:02 PM PST
by VeniVidiVici
(Play the 'Knockout Game' with someone owning a 9mm and you get what you deserve)

1.) All pretence of the rule of law comes to a screeching halt, and the feral government reigns supreme. 2.) We, the people declare independence from the oligarchy now in charge of America, reestablish the original Constitution, and get on with our lives.

“This right is deeply rooted in the nations history and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty because it protects an individuals ability to make deeply personal choices about love and family free from government interference.”

Ok...such bs.

Since the judge seems to depend on this “logic” as a core underpinning of his decision, can that be attacked in an appeal?
Its fairly obvious that homosexuality was never a thought to the founders nor in their wildest dreams a right.
Also, the fact that there are marriage laws at all IS a government interference...Should we just not have any laws about it, then?

Wasn’t homosexuality a hanging offense at the time the Constitution was write? Didn’t it remain so until the 1940’s when it was deemed a mental illness? So how can a behavior that has been practiced by criminals and crazies have deep roots in tradition in any beneficial way?

ask the court to hold that the State cannot prohibit them from exercising their existing right to marry on account of the sex of their chosen partner.

I've said before on this website, and I'm beginning to think I can git 'r done now - I'm going to find a cat that some crazy cat lady left $10 million to, and "ask the court to hold that the State cannot prohibit them from exercising their existing right to marry on account of the sex species of their chosen partner".

Who are you to question my love?

I am quite sure that the cat will be struck with a sudden illness and I will be a rich, broken hearted survivor of the world's first inter species marriage. I will be a pioneer, and will have done well by doing good, as liberals always say. Note that I only changed one word in the article's language.

Reductio ad absurdum (fancy language for /sarc)

18
posted on 12/23/2013 5:14:43 AM PST
by Hardastarboard
(The question of our age is whether a majority of Americans can and will vote us all into slavery.)

To establish a new fundamental right, the court must determine that the right is deeply rooted in this Nations history and tradition and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,”

by this error, that believes that mere “legal argument” held to certain standards, for the formulation of amending the Constitution via the concept of the “living constitution” is sufficient for establishing new “rights” that WE THE PEOPLE, the ONLY legitimate authors of our Constitutions, via our elected reprsentatives, have in fact NOT authored or approved our Constitution to contain.

We need an en masse impeachment of all such subversive judges.

How do they come to exist.

The above desrciption of how they think is very often how they are taught to think in our law schools.

To correct the judge’s error, the judicial thinking on “rights” should be “To recognize a fundamental right, the court must determine that the right has been placed in the Constitution by acts of the people.”

deeply rooted in the nations history and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, and as such is a fundamental right”

deeply rooted in the nation’s histroy?? phooey. the guy is nuts

and even if there was a shred of evidence for “implicit in the concept of ordered Liberty”, it remains up to the people, not the courts, to establish how and to what end a Liberty is recognized in law, or not.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.